The tangled mess of Christianity and Politics

[childeye 2]

For the record, if I saw you in this situation or your children, I would pray that I could make like Sampson with the Jawbone of a donkey for you and their sakes and neutralize that threat to you and your children.

I love you for saying that. You would be a Godsend. I also recall that Peter denied Christ three times, and also that the disciples were hiding when the Holy Spirit came upon them; only then did they go out boldly preaching the Gospel without fear of death.

Sometimes evil people murdering the weak need to be sent to Sheol. They will get a chance in the second resurrection, IMO.

You're right about defending the weak. Compassion favors the weak and the poor.

12 Because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him.

13 The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy.

14 I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem.

15 I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame.

16 I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out.

17 And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If by conservative you mean what the Republican party stands for, then you're misunderstanding me. They are largely a secular liberal party like the democrats but represent different interests within that worldview. I am talking about a viewpoint which is not liberal, not an outgroth of the enlightenment and not committed maintaining a secular society where religion is utterly divorced or distanced from the political power and society more broadly.

That to me would be authentically more Christian than what passes for Christianity in politics in the USA and the West broadly.

No one comes to mind for me. How about for you?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No one comes to mind for me. How about for you?

What do you mean? That there's no one who represents the preferred political order I might like? Yeah. That's a given.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What do you mean? That there's no one who represents the preferred political order I might like? Yeah. That's a given.

You initially asked, "Do you consider any political application of Christianity which isn't secular and liberal, to be legitimate?"

I res[ponded , "No one comes to mind for me. How about for you?"

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Of course, but not at the expense of someone else's children.

Rather only at the expense of your own children, whom are disposable and worth less than the lives of other children in your mind.

Don't worry, I'm not teaching them that I love someone else's children more than them, or that other children's lives are of a higher priority to me than their lives. I'm teaching them that God's Spirit is a self-sacrificing Love, and if they ever were in a scenario where they had to make such a choice, God's Spirit would not be telling them to let other people's children die so as to save your own.

God imbued within us certain duties, bonds and connections that demand a greater fealty than our responsibility to others. You are saying the spirit of God would tell you to abandon your own children to save others children. Are you sure this perspective isn't from Satan? That your children whom are supposed to look up to you as the one person in the world who has their back, but if you were to tell them the truth, they cannot ultimately rely on you. What sort of bond does this create? Does it strengthen your relationship with your children? No, it weakens it.

Mark 8:35
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

Self sacrifice is one thing, sacrificing one's children whom one owes more to than other children is another.

This began with the term welfare, and I said that the child with the greater needs should come first. You then moved the goal posts to a matter of life and death. So, in a sense it is about killing other people's children even if we are articulating it as letting them die when we could have saved them in lieu of our own.

I never moved the goalposts, rather the two are interconnected. You are willing to put the welfare of strangers above that of your own family, as if you don't owe your children anything. They are individuals and can do as they wish and must accept that they are of no greater importance to you than anyone else. I find this worldview utterly dystopian and anti Christian.

To be clear, we're here parsing the semantics of a hypothetical no win scenario wherein you're the one coming away thinking I'm the evil and immoral one, because I would let my children die so that yours can live. So, I'm pushing back by saying that God's Spirit (the moral power) would not have me kill your children so that mine can live. We're debating which image of God is True/Eternal, the one that sacrifices self to save others or the one who sacrifices others to save itself.

Yes, you're evil for forsaking the bond and duties you owe to your own children. Please don't tell your children that they mean less to you than to lives of others and that you would gladly sacrifice them and their welfare in order that others might benefit.

Of course it's a difficult option, so why let the devil deceive you into thinking I don't love my children? After all, this hypothetical no win scenario that you introduced is based on the supposition that all parents love their children. I hope you know that the spirit of the devil resorts to the ad hominem attack only to avoid the substantive facts of the argument.

Actions speak louder than words. If you are willing to chose others besides your children, then your love for others exceeds your love for family. That's all there is to it.

I appreciate your honesty, but the Holy Spirit that testifies to Jesus the Christ in the Gospel, is not convicting me of any immorality when I say I owe my children the same love all children are owed.

This is an evil perspective because it breaks the familial bond that God has built in us and the corresponding responsibilities we owe to our family.

Please note that you don't see me questioning your morality, and do you know why? Even because I'm the one preaching that God is real and that He is the moral power, not you or me. It's therefore not a competition in carnal vanity. It's just a matter of circumstance that there's a difference between how the carnal mind thinks and the spiritual mind thinks. This is why I was saying that you talk as if you've never experienced God's Spirit.

You're not questioning my morality because what I am saying is normal and natural. As humans we prioritize our own first and foremost and this sort of egalitarian position where you regard everyone as equal runs counter to the norms of Godly society. You aren't being spiritual, rather what you're doing is being conceited into thinking you can rise above the nature that God has instilled in us. Human relations and bonds of loyalty and fealty to family are not carnal or evil, they are natural and they are good.

You therefore need to seriously consider that contrary to the Christian faith, you're practicing a form of cynicism when you move the goal posts away from the sound logic of welfare being dispensed according to who has the greater need, and resort to the ad hominem attack by assuming that I must not love my children as much as you love yours, simply because I say God's Spirit would have me prefer to sacrifice my children so that yours may live. <--- That's a long sentence, hope you get it. Can you honestly say it's the Holy Spirit in you that would rather have you let my children die so that yours can live?

I would rather save my own children if given the choice because I owe it to them as a God given responsibility to protect them. I would not be happy that other children had to die in any given hypothetical situation but being a human and constrained by limitations there is only so much one can do.

Consider this. The faith that Abraham showed was that he was willing to sacrifice his son because he knew that God, as God, could simply raise Isaac from the dead anytime He wanted to. It was not because Abraham didn't love his son Isaac.

The reason why Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac was important is exactly because of the natural bond of family that is owed. God in asking him to sacrifice Isaac was demanding absolute love to himself first and foremost before any earthly relation and in the hierarchy of relationships this is true. Abraham if put in the sort of situation we are discussing where he had to save either his son's life or another's life would not have hesitated to save Isaac's life.

Also consider that there were two thieves crucified alongside the Christ. One wanted the Christ to get them down from the cross if he were truly the son of God. But the other one thought it was wrong to want to Jesus to prove himself by getting them down, because they at least had both done wrong, whereas Jesus suffered his cross having done nothing wrong, and he wasn't even trying to get down. Guess which one Jesus said would be in paradise with him?

This isn't all that relevant to to what I am saying.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You initially asked, "Do you consider any political application of Christianity which isn't secular and liberal, to be legitimate?"

I res[ponded , "No one comes to mind for me. How about for you?"

So we can only act as Christians politically if it is in alignment with a liberal enlightenment worldview?

 

[Ace777]

What do you mean? That there's no one who represents the preferred political order I might like? Yeah. That's a given.

I tend to be none of the above. We look forward to when Jesus will rule and reign for 1,000 years. For now we can see what a mess man makes out of things. In the Ark was the Manna, Aarons rod that budded and the ten commandments. This represents that people reject God provision, God's leadership and God's law.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I tend to be none of the above. We look forward to when Jesus will rule and reign for 1,000 years. For now we can see what a mess man makes out of things. In the Ark was the Manna, Aarons rod that budded and the ten commandments. This represents that people reject God provision, God's leadership and God's law.

I don't think this is exactly helpful or useful when thinking about politics. Sure on a personal level you may choose to abstain from politics and this can be beneficial but it isn't a template for every Christian because if every Christian did as you suggest, then the world would look very different. If the automatic reaction to Christians thinking about political power, thinking about what we can do in society to make things better is to say "man makes a mess of things," then what is it you are ultimately advocating for? Are you advocating a sort of local emphasis where Christians focus on their own communities first and foremost and forget about larger National projects like the USA? That could have some utility and I would be sympathetic to it but few Christians actually are willing to go that far, actually preferring to be part of these National projects.

 

[childeye 2]

Rather only at the expense of your own children, whom are disposable and worth less than the lives of other children in your mind.

That's not sound reasoning. The scenario must suppose all children are treasured by their parents, otherwise the loss of the child becomes meaningless and this exercise in reasoning becomes a moot point.

God imbued within us certain duties, bonds and connections that demand a greater fealty than our responsibility to others. You are saying the spirit of God would tell you to abandon your own children to save others children. Are you sure this perspective isn't from Satan?

The scenario already stipulates that there is a special bond of love between parents and their children. God would not be telling anyone to abandon their children just because He's telling us to count other people's children just as worthy of life as their own. So, to be clear, in this scenario, I'm saying He's telling me to not avoid suffering by handing it to someone else to have to suffer. And I'm positive the perspective from self-sacrificial love is not Satan's perspective.

Of course, it's common to look out for our own in this world. But this love that sacrifices oneself for others comes from heaven and is not of this world. Hence, it's the Gospel of Christ crucified preached unto the world.

God not only sent His son to die so that we may live; God knew His son would be stripped naked, mocked, scorned, beaten, scourged and nailed to a cross to die a slow and agonizing death as a spectacle of the ultimate shame, and yet would pray for his crucifiers. This is the incorruptible love on display, the Eternal Spirit that overcomes death and rises from the dead.

Wherefore Jesus says:
John 10:17
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

That your children whom are supposed to look up to you as the one person in the world who has their back, but if you were to tell them the truth, they cannot ultimately rely on you.

I don't personally hold to any high opinion of myself. I thank God for His Word and His providence, and I teach my children accordingly.

What sort of bond does this create? Does it strengthen your relationship with your children? No, it weakens it.

I think you're forgetting the bond is already established and also that this is a hypothetical. In this hypothetical my beloved children die instead of someone else's, so obviously there would be no relationship to strengthen or weaken since they're dead. However, as a Christian, because they died for the sake of others, I have the hope they will have eternal life.

Self sacrifice is one thing, sacrificing one's children whom one owes more to than other children is another.

Respectfully, that's not an accurate depiction. It's built into the parameters of the hypothetical scenario because the scenario presupposes that the children's lives are precious and treasured by their parents, otherwise it's a meaningless thought exercise.

Since it presupposes that all parents cherish their children, it's not even asking whether I owe my children something more than I owe other children. It's actually asking if I would take the suffering of losing my beloved children, or hand that suffering to someone else to have to experience. It's therefore asking if I would sacrifice myself to save others from suffering or sacrifice others to save myself from suffering.

I never moved the goalposts, rather the two are interconnected.

Your argument is about justifying the looking out for the interests of your own ahead of the interests of others in terms of welfare. In those terms you didn't disagree nor agree that it's reasonable that the child with the greater need should come first. But you then changed the scenario to a hypothetical no-win life/death semantical construct. You changed the conditions so that there no longer exist children with greater or lesser needs to factor in.

That's what I mean by moving the goal posts.

You are willing to put the welfare of strangers above that of your own family, as if you don't owe your children anything.

When it's about welfare, I'm saying the child with the greater need comes first, whether it's mine or someone else's.

Yes, you're evil for forsaking the bond and duties you owe to your own children.

Caring for the welfare of the neediest children first is not evil nor is it forsaking my bonds or duties to my own children.

You're not questioning my morality because what I am saying is normal and natural.

No, I'm not questioning your morality because I don't believe people can be moral apart from God. It's the same as saying that the Word of God is the Light of mankind. Hence there is no such thing as your or my morality. God's Spirit is Love, the moral power. No one owns God. To Love God with all heart mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself, is morality.

As humans we prioritize our own first and foremost and this sort of egalitarian position where you regard everyone as equal runs counter to the norms of Godly society.

Since Jesus taught to love others as I would want to be loved, I must count others as my equal, or discount God's Word.

You aren't being spiritual, rather what you're doing is being conceited into thinking you can rise above the nature that God has instilled in us. Human relations and bonds of loyalty and fealty to family are not carnal or evil, they are natural and they are good.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying the bond of love between parents and their children is evil. I'm saying it's the carnal part of mankind that cares about His or Her own carnal comfort and discomfort, and it's the spiritual part of mankind that cares about the suffering and well-being of others. Hence the carnal mind is cynical, thinking that everyone is self-serving, caring about their selves over others, and therefore projecting the same onto others.

So, the fact remains that Jesus taught that we're to love others as ourselves, otherwise we're hypocritical in our judgment.

 

[bèlla]

As humans we prioritize our own first and foremost and this sort of egalitarian position where you regard everyone as equal runs counter to the norms of Godly society.

I don't believe the egalitarian position is the norm. Nor was it evident in recent times when the church confronted a crisis. During the pandemic most people did as you've described and prioritized their welfare and loved ones. They came first.

There's numerous threads attesting to the same and the realizations that followed. Most people won't put their loved ones at risk for others and few will lose their lives on your behalf. I've confronted similar speculations for things hit the fan scenarios with heroic imaginations. Because I've experienced it.

When things fell apart the doors were looked. The lights were out. Curtains were drawn and we watched the mayhem from our windows. Nobody ventured outdoors to intervene or a be a hero. Safety was foremost.

~bella

 

[childeye 2]

Rather only at the expense of your own children, whom are disposable and worth less than the lives of other children in your mind.

I am Childeye's daughter. I have read some of this thread and there are two ways to look at this. I can tell you with all honesty that if I believe that my father has sold me out for another child, that makes me feel horrible. If I believe that my father has sacrificed himself and me so that others will not suffer, that makes me feel proud and I respect my father that he would take that suffering on himself rather than put that on another person. Only one of these scenarios can be true. One brings darkness to my heart and one brings light. I will say that I personally would not be afraid to die for someone else because I believe there is a heaven. It's not really death.

 

[Grip Docility]

I am Childeye's daughter. I have read some of this thread and there are two ways to look at this. I can tell you with all honesty that if I believe that my father has sold me out for another child, that makes me feel horrible. If I believe that my father has sacrificed himself and me so that others will not suffer, that makes me feel proud and I respect my father that he would take that suffering on himself rather than put that on another person. Only one of these scenarios can be true. One brings darkness to my heart and one brings light. I will say that I personally would not be afraid to die for someone else because I believe there is a heaven. It's not really death.

Wow! This is a profoundly incredible post!

These are the words of someone who understands their Lord and Savior’s very heart!

Christ forever bless you, keep you and Love through you!

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I am Childeye's daughter. I have read some of this thread and there are two ways to look at this. I can tell you with all honesty that if I believe that my father has sold me out for another child, that makes me feel horrible. If I believe that my father has sacrificed himself and me so that others will not suffer, that makes me feel proud and I respect my father that he would take that suffering on himself rather than put that on another person. Only one of these scenarios can be true. One brings darkness to my heart and one brings light. I will say that I personally would not be afraid to die for someone else because I believe there is a heaven. It's not really death.

I think it's sad that you cannot rely on your father ultimately. That he will choose someone else to live rather than you. To me this is a betrayal of what a father's duty is to their children. You personally being willing to die for someone else is one thing, to be abandoned in a moment of trial by the one person whom you should rely on, is another. It's a profound betrayal.

 

[bèlla]

Wow! This is a profoundly incredible post!

These are the words of someone who understands their Lord and Savior’s very heart!

Christ forever bless you, keep you and Love through you!

The likelihood of anyone's children entering a discussion on the internet to support their parent's position is small and if they did the statement would occur under their own username. This isn't Facebook or similarly sized platforms where you'd encounter the same. It's a small forum with a distinctive niche.

It has not escaped my attention that 'the child' appeared after a statement that corroborated the point under debate. And astute participants understand the nuances of communication and its applicability to the writer's voice.

Everyone possesses a distinct way of expression and vernacular. Adopting a second iteration is difficult for most. Which made impersonation challenging in the past because of the similarities in tone and speech.

Consider the topic under discussion. We aren't weighing a matter that necessitates an outsiders entry and the suddenness is suspicious. The position the other has taken is outside of the norm and the desire for recognition is evident. You responded favorably but others have not. The desire isn't satisfied until everyone agrees.

Given the propensity of debate and differing opinions on the site. Can you imagine the same occurring elsewhere? We serve and volley with aplomb but the racket remains in our hands. And we tag from within not without.

You're welcome to believe if you wish. But in all probability you're speaking to the person you were all along. Reading aloud brings differences to the fore. If we compare our expression the difference is obvious. We don't sound alike nor do we sound like other participants.

If you've been on the internet long enough you recall the frequency of impersonation and sock accounts and how the individuals were unmasked. Oftentimes the writing was their undoing. It takes skill to write convincingly with multiple voices without the other creeping in and the majority can't.

~bella

 

[childeye 2]

The likelihood of anyone's children entering a discussion on the internet to support their parent's position is small and if they did the statement would occur under their own username. This isn't Facebook or similarly sized platforms where you'd encounter the same. It's a small forum with a distinctive niche.

It has not escaped my attention that 'the child' appeared after a statement that corroborated the point under debate. And astute participants understand the nuances of communication and its applicability to the writer's voice.

Everyone possesses a distinct way of expression and vernacular. Adopting a second iteration is difficult for most. Which made impersonation challenging in the past because of the similarities in tone and speech.

Consider the topic under discussion. We aren't weighing a matter that necessitates an outsiders entry and the suddenness is suspicious. The position the other has taken is outside of the norm and the desire for recognition is evident. You responded favorably but others have not. The desire isn't satisfied until everyone agrees.

Given the propensity of debate and differing opinions on the site. Can you imagine the same occurring elsewhere? We serve and volley with aplomb but the racket remains in our hands. And we tag from within not without.

You're welcome to believe if you wish. But in all probability you're speaking to the person you were all along. Reading aloud brings differences to the fore. If we compare our expression the difference is obvious. We don't sound alike nor do we sound like other participants.

If you've been on the internet long enough you recall the frequency of impersonation and sock accounts and how the individuals were unmasked. Oftentimes the writing was their undoing. It takes skill to write convincingly with multiple voices without the other creeping in and the majority can't.

~bella

Listen Bella, I'm Childeyes wife, our Daughter is an adult and is capable of having discussions on all types of topics , to insinuate that it was him posting is not very Christian of you! I'd like to cuss but I wont. What kind of person accuses someone else of falsehood's without any proof? Now thats wicked She is our youngest of 3 and I watched her type and post her reply.

Childeye:
Well, there you have it Bella. I let my daughter read what had been said about me as a father, and she insisted on posting, and I let my wife say some of what she wanted to say after reading your post.

 

[childeye 2]

I think it's sad that you cannot rely on your father ultimately. That he will choose someone else to live rather than you. To me this is a betrayal of what a father's duty is to their children. You personally being willing to die for someone else is one thing, to be abandoned in a moment of trial by the one person whom you should rely on, is another. It's a profound betrayal.

She's not here and can't respond to you. She's married and has her own children and she has gone home.

 

[bèlla]

Listen Bella, I' m Childeyes wife, our Daughter is an adult and is capable of having discussions on all types of topics , to insinuate that it was him posting is not very Christian of you! I'd like to cuss but I wont. What kind of person accuses someone else of falsehood's without any proof? Now thats wicked She is our youngest of 3 and I watched her type and post her reply.

It was your decision to bring another into the discussion. If scrutiny is bothersome that isn't my fault. It's a consequence of the choice and the expectation of belief is strange. We're conversing anonymously within this space. I'm not required to believe or trust anything I read.

God has given us the faculties for reason and discernment and the impartation of wisdom if we seek its presence. If questioning its authenticity seems wicked in your in mind so be it. You've responded and I haven't been swayed. Further attempts to do so are futile.

Let us return to the topic at hand.

~bella

 

[Grip Docility]

She's not here and can't respond to you. She's married and has her own children and she has gone home.

It was your decision to bring another into the discussion. If scrutiny is bothersome that isn't my fault. It's a consequence of the choice and the expectation of belief is strange. We're conversing anonymously within this space. I'm not required to believe or trust anything I read.

God has given us the faculties for reason and discernment and the impartation of wisdom if we seek its presence. If questioning its authenticity seems wicked in your in mind so be it. You've responded and I haven't been swayed. Further attempts to do so are futile.

Let us return to the topic at hand.

~bella

Bella, Childeye2 and myself have been in the thick of some heated debates, together, before. We’ve even challenged one another beyond the bounds of deep dialogue.

You are a wonderful poster, Bella. I assure you, childeye2 and myself have something in common that I’m pretty sure we know about one another… we both speak from heart to mouth, without deception. I’m certain that you, @bèlla are the same.

Believe me, childeye2 took a hard stance in dialogue in representation of Christ and didn’t back down. I am certain that we just met Childeye2’s lovely daughter and wife.

You could bet money on it.

All Love in Jesus Christ to All of you who rest in Him.

 

[childeye 2]

It was your decision to bring another into the discussion.

She read what was said about her father and she wanted to say something, so I let her. But yes that was my decision to let her. It was your heart to mouth words that expressed a negative prejudice rather than a positive prejudice. With respect, you are skeptical, and I understand that there are reasons why people are the way we are and can't help it.

But let me point out that had you expressed the positive prejudice (grace through faith) then you would not have engaged in hypocrisy, because even if you were wrong for wanting to trust me as you would want to be trusted and I was a fraud, you would have still been loving others as you would want to be loved.

If scrutiny is bothersome that isn't my fault. It's a consequence of the choice and the expectation of belief is strange.

The scrutiny is not bothersome, but on this side, we can only shake our heads because we know what the truth/reality is.

We're conversing anonymously within this space. I'm not required to believe or trust anything I read.

I'm not saying you should trust anything you read. I'm saying Jesus taught that we should love others as ourselves. This is me, and you need to carefully scrutinize every word I'm about to say.

The Word of God (the Spirit of Christ) is a voice his sheep will recognize. I'm telling you that the Holy Spirit does not slander people. I'm telling you that the spirit of the devil is an accuser and a slanderer. I'm telling you that it is wickedness to want to believe bad things said about other people without any proof, because it violates loving others as you would want to be loved. That is solid discernment, and it applies whether the slander happens in our thoughts (the devil), or in our political rhetoric, or between friends and family.

Whoever doesn't love others as themselves are hypocritical in judgment, and they reason upon a falsehood and their reasoning will end in a contradiction. When my family saw the slander towards me on a Christian forum, they got a bit upset.

 

[bèlla]

Believe me, childeye2 took a hard stance in dialogue in representation of Christ and didn’t back down. I am certain that we just met Childeye2’s lovely daughter and wife.

You could bet money on it.

I appreciate your courtesy and willingness to weigh in and for sharing your perspective and experiences. But bear in mind, we aren't acquainted either. That is a reality all must recognize when relating in this space. If you're satisfied things are described that's okay.

I shared an opinion and it's up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Much like we do in other discussions. You're not going to convince everyone to see things in the same light nor is their unwillingness a slight or malicious. It comes with the territory.

That's a hallmark of discourse. We have different experiences and insights and somethings resonate and others don't. That's a part of life. You've made your decision and we feel differently and that's fine. But I'm not trying to bring you to my point of view. I accept your position and the matter is settled. Continuance won't alter mine and I'm permitted to believe otherwise.

~bella